Godwin Boy Okumu v Coalition Security Services Limited [2021] KEELRC 1421 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court excused a delayed appeal filing caused by COVID-19 court disruptions, giving the appellant 21 days to file.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file the Memorandum of Appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate
- 3.Whether the intended appeal is frivolous
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in lodging the appeal was excusable
The delay was not inordinate, as the 30-day filing period fell within the COVID-19 pandemic period of partial court closure and electronic communications
The court noted judgment was delivered on 22nd May 2020 and the Memorandum of Appeal was lodged on 22nd June 2020, within the statutory 30-day period, but the appeal stalled in the registry due to email communication difficulties and fee assessment delays during the pandemic. Given the COVID-19 operating restrictions, the resulting delay in the filing process was excusable and the applicant demonstrated good and sufficient cause under section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act.
Whether the intended appeal is frivolous
The appeal is not frivolous on its face, and the merits are left to be determined once the appeal is filed
The court held that chances of success cannot be decided at the leave stage. From the attached memorandum of appeal, the intended appeal was not frivolous on its face, and the applicant would have an opportunity to argue the merits while the respondent would have a chance to respond once the appeal is filed.
Applicable legal framework for extension of time in ELRC appeals
In the absence of regulatory rules under the ELRC Procedure Rules on lodging appeals, section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act applies; reliance on Article 59 of the Constitution is irrelevant
Rule 8 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 permits a party to file an appeal but does not provide a regulatory framework for the lodging process. Accordingly, section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, governing appeals from subordinate courts to the High Court, applies. The invocation of Article 59 of the Constitution was irrelevant to the application.
Legal principles established
#- Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act applies to appeals from subordinate courts to the High Court and an appeal may be admitted out of time on good and sufficient cause; Article 59 of the Constitution is irrelevant to such applications
- The merits of an intended appeal are not determined on an extension-of-time application; the court need only be satisfied the appeal is not frivolous on its face
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 8th September, 2020 allowed
- 2.Applicant granted leave of 21 days to file appeal out of time with regard to Chief Magistrates Court Milimani Commercial Court CMEL No.653 of 2019
- 3.Applicant to bear own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates Court Milimani Commercial Court
- CMEL No.653 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 59 of the Constitution (held irrelevant) and Rule 8 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 read with section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
No doubt, the 30 days fell in the Covid 19 pandemic period necessitating partial closure of courts and communications electronically and therefore the delay in filing the intended appeal was not inordinate.
Provided that an appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.
Accordingly, application dated 8th September, 2020 is hereby allowed and the applicant granted leave of 21 days to file appeal out of time with regard to Chief Magistrates Court Milimani Commercial Court CMEL No.653 of 2019. Applicant shall bear own cots.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment mislabels section 79G as 'Section 75G of the Civil Procedure Act' in the introductory sentence before correctly citing it as 79G
Judgment alternates between citing 'Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2014' and '2016' for the same Rule 8
Typographical error in costs order ('cots' instead of 'costs')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Godwin Boy Okumu v Coalition Security Services Limited [2021] KEELRC 1421 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 8th September, 2020 (ELRC Miscellaneous). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1421/eng@2021-05-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.